Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: What COULD a camera be in 2018?  (Read 6315 times)

Jeremy Roussak

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8998
    • site
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2018, 01:34:17 am »

My cameras do little for me which is why I bought them, allowing me to retain control and make decisions.

That reminds me of the debates we used to have over programming languages. “I code in assembler, because it gives me more control”; “I use a high-level language, because I can concentrate on the bigger picture’.  It’s a dead argument now.

Jeremy
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2018, 04:07:45 am »

That reminds me of the debates we used to have over programming languages. “I code in assembler, because it gives me more control”; “I use a high-level language, because I can concentrate on the bigger picture’.  It’s a dead argument now.

Jeremy

And that reminds me of the gobbledygook in the manuals supplied for the supercomputers that we now call cameras.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2018, 04:48:02 am »

As I've pointed out before in LuLa, my primitive digital pair is programmed to be as manual as it allows itself to be.

Both bodies share two wonderful features: Matrix metering; auto ISO that lets me set both aperture and shutter to any combination that I desire, and works perfectly well as long as I am not stupid enough to go to either extreme beyond the available sensitivity range unless I want to, for some effect.

The rest of the features represent added cost to no personal benefit.

As with Peter and Keith, cameras for me mean a tool for a fairly usual kind of image-making. If any of us scores something special with our pictures, it's not because of our cameras.

Another point I've made here before, that underlines what I wrote above, is that I really doubt that had I been born into the era of digital photography, I would have made it a career. I have neither a natural aptitude for thinking in digital science, nor any urge to know more about it; I have learned enough to do what I do, and only do that because of the love for photography nurtured long ago.

In essence, jumping in now has worked for me because of my early and very long experiences with film and darkrooms, and because of those years I have been able to carry forward a set of personal conceptions of what images can look like and appear "natural" or, if you prefer, convincingly un-effed to death with PS or whatever, even if some recent ones have stretched my imagination quite far into manipulation. But, I believe they have also looked realistic enough to work.

But none of that is thanks to a camera's set of tricks.

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7406
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2018, 05:49:26 am »

I would like my Sony to have the Live View Composite mode of Olympus. Great for astro landscapes.

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2018, 09:54:44 am »

Here's a few things I'd like to see:
  • A camera OS SDK to permit third parties to customize the camera. I see this becoming more important as more computational photography techniques are employed, such as focus stacking. Magic Lantern for everyone.
  • A swiss arca L bracket integrated into the body.
  • Add a shutter just inside the lens mount that closes whenever you remove a lens and opens again when a lens is replaced. This would make it way easier to change lenses in hostile environments.
  • Incorporate tiny LCD displays for each button and dial showing the current customized function. For example, if you have customized button FN1 to preview DoF then it should show DoF is the current function, not the ambiguous FN1. Using multiple cameras, I'm always forgetting what does what.
  • The UI should be designed to work optimally using only the right hand wearing light gloves while looking through the viewfinder to adjust exposure and focus controls: shutter speed, aperture, ISO, Auto ISO on/off, focus location, focus mode, zoom focus check and custom modes C1 - Cn.
  • When in manual exposure mode, I would like to be able ramp shutter speed and ISO to maintain the same EV. For example, I might have an action exposure of 1/1600 sec, ISO 1600, f/5.6 and I want to change to a static exposure of the subject. I want to reduce the shutter speed and ISO quickly to 1/400 sec and ISO 400. This must work using only the right hand while looking through the viewfinder. Note that this is different from using auto ISO, which may change the EV as you recompose or the light changes. I want to maintain the set EV.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2018, 10:00:02 am »

When in manual exposure mode, I would like to be able ramp shutter speed and ISO to maintain the same EV. For example, I might have an action exposure of 1/1600 sec, ISO 1600, f/5.6 and I want to change to a static exposure of the subject. I want to reduce the shutter speed and ISO quickly to 1/400 sec and ISO 400. This must work using only the right hand while looking through the viewfinder. Note that this is different from using auto ISO, which may change the EV as you recompose or the light changes. I want to maintain the set EV.[/li][/list]

I need to double check on the D850, but I believe that Nikon bodies have been able to do this since at least the D800 with a combination of auto-ISO in M mode and exposure lock.

Cheers,
Bernard

Rory

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 528
    • Recent images
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2018, 10:21:04 am »

I need to double check on the D850, but I believe that Nikon bodies have been able to do this since at least the D800 with a combination of auto-ISO in M mode and exposure lock.

Cheers,
Bernard

Thanks Bernard!  This works.  I'll have to figure out a good way to implement this.  I sure wish Nikon did not cripple the customize buttons feature.
Logged
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/roryhi

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2018, 01:25:18 pm »

RAW histograms? If one shoots RAW, a RAW histogram makes more sense than a JPG histogram, even though the preview image is in JPG. One should be able to toggle between RAW and JPG histograms.

I am afraid that I am a bit old-school, it is often easier for me to just dial in manually than to putz with exposure compensation. I would like the option of in-camera stabilization for use with lenses lacking image stabilization. No IBIS is going to be great at handling 1:1 macro, though...
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2018, 01:26:38 pm »

For what it’s worth, one of the ways I like to use auto-ISO is in M mode which allows me to set both aperture and speed and let the camera adjust the ISO while taking into account whatever exposure compensation I set. This works very well, but exposure remains based on the camera meter.

It would indeed be neat to do this based on an exposure assessment done from raw histogram with adjustable degree of ETTR.

Without underestimating the potential of technology nor the value of discussing it, the more I photograph though, the more I think that planning, awarness, light, vision and timing make 90% of an image and I wouldn’t consider an AI algo to be able to contribute to making my images better.

Cheers,
Bernard

Amen.

HywelPhillips

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 64
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2018, 04:21:52 pm »


Another point I've made here before, that underlines what I wrote above, is that I really doubt that had I been born into the era of digital photography, I would have made it a career. I have neither a natural aptitude for thinking in digital science, nor any urge to know more about it; I have learned enough to do what I do, and only do that because of the love for photography nurtured long ago.

In essence, jumping in now has worked for me because of my early and very long experiences with film and darkrooms, and because of those years I have been able to carry forward a set of personal conceptions of what images can look like and appear "natural" or, if you prefer, convincingly un-effed to death with PS or whatever, even if some recent ones have stretched my imagination quite far into manipulation. But, I believe they have also looked realistic enough to work.

But none of that is thanks to a camera's set of tricks.

I guess I have the opposite experience, having started photography and computing at about the same time: the late 1970's, as a child. My parents were academics- my father an Electrical Engineer, my mother a Pure Mathematician who made a living solving other university researchers' crazy hard-to-solve computer program bugs. Both also photographed as a hobby. I played with my first cameras around the same time I started playing with logic gates and oscilloscopes; the university film development labs and the electronics labs.

I become a professional photographer the same year Canon introduced their first dSLR. I realised on a photographic trip I'd done to LA that if I'd bought the D30 before the shoot, it would have paid for itself in film processing costs alone. And it saved the god-awful flog of getting film scanned.

My business model relies on the low cost and relatively high volumes that digital facilitates. Digital and the web are the reason I could go pro at all.

In the interim, I was a professional scientist- a particle physicist, working in experiments where digital data were everything and everywhere. It's probably not surprising that I just see the camera as the first step in the data processing chain.

I was also a hobbyist landscape and people photographer who was never really satisfied with the results. (Film's over-rated. I hate grain, and even Provia 100 had too much for my tastes. Heresy, but for my particular photographic style and business, true).

It's great that our current cameras support traditional working methods.

But what excites me more is that they've also democritized and opened up whole areas of photographic art that were previously prohibitively slow and painstaking for all but a few obsessives to really contemplate. And some which were flat out impossible.

A great example of this is multi-image capture. It was always possible to do image stitching, even in the darkroom. But making big panoramas was tough- matching the exposure to compensate for lens vignetting, for example. People used to do HDR by selective exposure of prints from different negatives: on relatively easy-to-cut-out subjects like the full moon and a moonlit landscape, say.  They did the sort of tone mapping that selective dodging and burning represents to reduce the dynamic range to that which a print can comfortably hold.

Cameras have facilitated this sort of set-up for years. Marking the nodal point and film plane, for example. Auto-exposure bracketing. These have been around so long that you don't tend to hear people complain about them. They just use them or not, depending on whether they are useful for them.

Now we have genuinely new fields of photography which permit us to make images which were nigh-on impossible to get with film cameras before the digital post processing era. Like focus stacking for macro shots.

You probably could have done it in an analogue way combining a small number of exposures for a landscape, or using split dioptres. But now it is possible to stack tens or hundreds of images to render front-to-back sharpness of extreme macro shots. That's new. 

That may not be the sort of photography that you are interested in.

But it is a great example of a place where a digital camera can make the whole thing a hell of a lot easier to do. This doesn't involve any crazy AI or anything else that people seem to be fretting about. It's a purely mechanical thing- automate the process of taking 20 or 30 or 50 shots making small changes to the focus point for each shot. This in no way compromises the photographer's skill or vision. It just automates a really dull and fiddly mechanical process.

And if you're going to do that, why not tag the shots in the metadata to facilitate the post-processing as well? And if the processing power is there in camera, why not build a JPEG preview of the focus stacked shot while you are at it?

I remember the complaints about being able to look at shots on the back of the camera, that it would erode the traditional skill of waiting with panic for the shots to come back from the lab to make sure you'd not made an unwitting technical cock-up on an expensive shoot. That was nonsense; we're now rightfully expecting better and better screens, the better to judge the shots as soon as we've taken them. For the vast majority of photographers, instant review is a significantly better way to work.

I remember the complaints about video features on dSLR, when video is a feature that you'd be hard pushed NOT to implement the moment you have live view (which lots of trad manual focus photographers were calling out for).

Sure, there's an argument that going too heavy on the video side might compromise the ergonomics on the stills side. Ergonomics is the thread that always runs parallel to new functionality. It takes time to get right, and it can be intrusive in the meantime.

But I'd have to say that my Panasonic GH4 is pretty nice ergonomically for stills and video. For sure not as nice as a full-blown digital cine camera, but also a whole lot nicer to carry up a mountain. The Sony video ergonomics are fine, and don't really impinge much on the stills ergonomics either.

Plenty of people said OIS and IBIS was a gimmick, who needed that when you've got a good solid tripod, after all? The answer is anyone who doesn't like shooting with a tripod, or whose photographic subject makes that difficult. A photojournalist moving fast, or a wedding photographer moving with the bride and groom, say.

The algorithms behind IBIS are pretty fearsome- but they don't impinge on the photo-taking experience for most photographers. At least not most of the time. There are a few edge cases like panning in video or using lenses which don't transmit focal length data, for which it is easy to turn off or control more manually. Many photographers, myself included, can just leave the IBIS on for 95% of shots... and get sharper results handheld as a result. And with each generation the algorithm improves to the point where it now deals acceptably well with panning shots for most practical purposes, and it doesn't seem to do much harm leaving it on for shortish exposures on a tripod these days, even. Can help with residual vibrations or wind, I find. Especially if it means I can take a 1 kg travel tripod up the mountain rather than a 5 kg monster.

It's the same with autofocus, especially eye AF. Ferociously complicated algorithms to implement a basic photographic task- focus on the closer eye. It sounds like a gimmick until you've experienced how well it works. But conceptually it's dead easy, and actually using it is so simple (push a button) that my regular assistants prefer using the Sonys to the Hasselblad these days. 

So I guess for me I like the idea of the camera offering us higher level abstractions, facilitating manual control over the things that matter (like getting a complete focus stack with all the necessary shots) rather than insisting on the old abstractions as the only way to go (forcing you to adjust focus manually by the correct amount for each of those 30-ish shots in a focus stack).

I think it is really exciting that stuff which was out of reach or plain impossible 20 years ago is now within the realm of jobbing photographers and amateurs. Astro-landscape, for example. Sure, it gets trendy, then overused, then stale, then naff. But 90% of everything is crap, and the 10% can be AWESOME.

So honestly- I think you're mistaken about a CAMERA's bag of tricks. The camera's bag of tricks is there to facilitate getting the result that the photographer wants. I just don't see why that's a bad thing, so long as the ergonomics are acceptable. Finding the right control metaphors and streamlining the UI takes time, and this stuff is new. But the "tricks" themselves are facilitators, not obstacles.

You can't walk on to a sports field with a new dSLR and a 400mm lens and expect to outsell the 20 year veteran next to you. The photographer is still key, and he probably COULD shoot with a manual focus lens and still get more saleable shots than Joe Newbie. But you can also bet that the 20 year veteran is, in fact, using a top-flight camera with the best autofocus that money can buy. Because that automation is the right facilitator for their shots.

Like eye AF is the right facilitator for many people photographers, and focus stacking is for focus-stacking-extreme-macro photographers. Your first focus stacked macro shot will still be shit. And yet when you figure out what you are doing, having the camera automate some of the drudgery will become a feature that might decide your whole choice of camera system.

Cheers, Hywel Phillips
« Last Edit: August 01, 2018, 04:41:26 pm by HywelPhillips »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2018, 05:33:27 pm »

I guess I have the opposite experience, having started photography and computing at about the same time: the late 1970's, as a child. My parents were academics- my father an Electrical Engineer, my mother a Pure Mathematician who made a living solving other university researchers' crazy hard-to-solve computer program bugs. Both also photographed as a hobby. I played with my first cameras around the same time I started playing with logic gates and oscilloscopes; the university film development labs and the electronics labs.

I become a professional photographer the same year Canon introduced their first dSLR. I realised on a photographic trip I'd done to LA that if I'd bought the D30 before the shoot, it would have paid for itself in film processing costs alone. And it saved the god-awful flog of getting film scanned.

My business model relies on the low cost and relatively high volumes that digital facilitates. Digital and the web are the reason I could go pro at all.

In the interim, I was a professional scientist- a particle physicist, working in experiments where digital data were everything and everywhere. It's probably not surprising that I just see the camera as the first step in the data processing chain.

I was also a hobbyist landscape and people photographer who was never really satisfied with the results. (Film's over-rated. I hate grain, and even Provia 100 had too much for my tastes. Heresy, but for my particular photographic style and business, true).

It's great that our current cameras support traditional working methods.

But what excites me more is that they've also democritized and opened up whole areas of photographic art that were previously prohibitively slow and painstaking for all but a few obsessives to really contemplate. And some which were flat out impossible.

A great example of this is multi-image capture. It was always possible to do image stitching, even in the darkroom. But making big panoramas was tough- matching the exposure to compensate for lens vignetting, for example. People used to do HDR by selective exposure of prints from different negatives: on relatively easy-to-cut-out subjects like the full moon and a moonlit landscape, say.  They did the sort of tone mapping that selective dodging and burning represents to reduce the dynamic range to that which a print can comfortably hold.

Cameras have facilitated this sort of set-up for years. Marking the nodal point and film plane, for example. Auto-exposure bracketing. These have been around so long that you don't tend to hear people complain about them. They just use them or not, depending on whether they are useful for them.

Now we have genuinely new fields of photography which permit us to make images which were nigh-on impossible to get with film cameras before the digital post processing era. Like focus stacking for macro shots.

You probably could have done it in an analogue way combining a small number of exposures for a landscape, or using split dioptres. But now it is possible to stack tens or hundreds of images to render front-to-back sharpness of extreme macro shots. That's new. 

That may not be the sort of photography that you are interested in.

But it is a great example of a place where a digital camera can make the whole thing a hell of a lot easier to do. This doesn't involve any crazy AI or anything else that people seem to be fretting about. It's a purely mechanical thing- automate the process of taking 20 or 30 or 50 shots making small changes to the focus point for each shot. This in no way compromises the photographer's skill or vision. It just automates a really dull and fiddly mechanical process.

And if you're going to do that, why not tag the shots in the metadata to facilitate the post-processing as well? And if the processing power is there in camera, why not build a JPEG preview of the focus stacked shot while you are at it?

I remember the complaints about being able to look at shots on the back of the camera, that it would erode the traditional skill of waiting with panic for the shots to come back from the lab to make sure you'd not made an unwitting technical cock-up on an expensive shoot. That was nonsense; we're now rightfully expecting better and better screens, the better to judge the shots as soon as we've taken them. For the vast majority of photographers, instant review is a significantly better way to work.

I remember the complaints about video features on dSLR, when video is a feature that you'd be hard pushed NOT to implement the moment you have live view (which lots of trad manual focus photographers were calling out for).

Sure, there's an argument that going too heavy on the video side might compromise the ergonomics on the stills side. Ergonomics is the thread that always runs parallel to new functionality. It takes time to get right, and it can be intrusive in the meantime.

But I'd have to say that my Panasonic GH4 is pretty nice ergonomically for stills and video. For sure not as nice as a full-blown digital cine camera, but also a whole lot nicer to carry up a mountain. The Sony video ergonomics are fine, and don't really impinge much on the stills ergonomics either.

Plenty of people said OIS and IBIS was a gimmick, who needed that when you've got a good solid tripod, after all? The answer is anyone who doesn't like shooting with a tripod, or whose photographic subject makes that difficult. A photojournalist moving fast, or a wedding photographer moving with the bride and groom, say.

The algorithms behind IBIS are pretty fearsome- but they don't impinge on the photo-taking experience for most photographers. At least not most of the time. There are a few edge cases like panning in video or using lenses which don't transmit focal length data, for which it is easy to turn off or control more manually. Many photographers, myself included, can just leave the IBIS on for 95% of shots... and get sharper results handheld as a result. And with each generation the algorithm improves to the point where it now deals acceptably well with panning shots for most practical purposes, and it doesn't seem to do much harm leaving it on for shortish exposures on a tripod these days, even. Can help with residual vibrations or wind, I find. Especially if it means I can take a 1 kg travel tripod up the mountain rather than a 5 kg monster.

It's the same with autofocus, especially eye AF. Ferociously complicated algorithms to implement a basic photographic task- focus on the closer eye. It sounds like a gimmick until you've experienced how well it works. But conceptually it's dead easy, and actually using it is so simple (push a button) that my regular assistants prefer using the Sonys to the Hasselblad these days. 

So I guess for me I like the idea of the camera offering us higher level abstractions, facilitating manual control over the things that matter (like getting a complete focus stack with all the necessary shots) rather than insisting on the old abstractions as the only way to go (forcing you to adjust focus manually by the correct amount for each of those 30-ish shots in a focus stack).

I think it is really exciting that stuff which was out of reach or plain impossible 20 years ago is now within the realm of jobbing photographers and amateurs. Astro-landscape, for example. Sure, it gets trendy, then overused, then stale, then naff. But 90% of everything is crap, and the 10% can be AWESOME.

So honestly- I think you're mistaken about a CAMERA's bag of tricks. The camera's bag of tricks is there to facilitate getting the result that the photographer wants. I just don't see why that's a bad thing, so long as the ergonomics are acceptable. Finding the right control metaphors and streamlining the UI takes time, and this stuff is new. But the "tricks" themselves are facilitators, not obstacles.

You can't walk on to a sports field with a new dSLR and a 400mm lens and expect to outsell the 20 year veteran next to you. The photographer is still key, and he probably COULD shoot with a manual focus lens and still get more saleable shots than Joe Newbie. But you can also bet that the 20 year veteran is, in fact, using a top-flight camera with the best autofocus that money can buy. Because that automation is the right facilitator for their shots.

Like eye AF is the right facilitator for many people photographers, and focus stacking is for focus-stacking-extreme-macro photographers. Your first focus stacked macro shot will still be shit. And yet when you figure out what you are doing, having the camera automate some of the drudgery will become a feature that might decide your whole choice of camera system.

Cheers, Hywel Phillips



Good analysis of your priorities, and like you say, a very different set of criteria to mine.

Your early experience and background certainly explains your duck-to-water delight with tech, which as I mentioned, leaves me out in the cold because my natural instincts lie at the polar opposite!

Guess we need different cameras.

:-)

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2018, 06:08:08 pm »

Interesting, Hywel.

"3D camera" for beginners is an obvious choice for powerful in-camera processors.

Rapid landscape focus stack capture, rapid close-up focus stack capture could be easily automated in camera with AF lenses - essentially "give me x frames over y distance" - Magic Lantern add-on has been able to do this for at least 6 years. I would think that a lot more capture tasks could be automated. Pentax has the pixel shift technology, and apparently it is quite good if your subject is still - runs into expected problems if wind is blowing. Automated capture interests me more than fancy in-cam processing, because I want the control possible with different RAW converters, noise reduction programs, stacking and pano programs, etc. Who wants to peer closely at the tiny camera LCD (says the photographer on the wrong side of 60)? Much easier to choose image and then work on it on a decent sized monitor. And of course the deep-sky astro folks have been automating capture for ages now, so the photographer can get some sleep.

As for landscape, astro-landscape, etc being trendy - well, yes, but sometimes you just want to image Your Favorite Hike / campsite / etc. It is nice to travel to exotic locales, but I have plenty to do just within a 150 to 200 mile radius.

In film days in large format, Polaroid was pretty popular as a pre-check before imaging the film. Or - the only image made - remember positive-negative Polaroid? Before cheap digital capture, I burned through a lot of Polaroid film recording fluorescent bands in agarose and acrylamide gels.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2018, 10:15:53 pm »




Good analysis of your priorities, and like you say, a very different set of criteria to mine.

Your early experience and background certainly explains your duck-to-water delight with tech, which as I mentioned, leaves me out in the cold because my natural instincts lie at the polar opposite!

Guess we need different cameras.

:-)

Nah...for you there are plenty cameras from the 60's in pawn shops...that should keep you happy. ;)
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2018, 12:19:02 pm »

Nah...for you there are plenty cameras from the 60's in pawn shops...that should keep you happy. ;)

At least we know he is a photographer. I'd bet the results he'd get from using those pawn shop cameras would put most supercomputer camera wielding contributors here to shame.

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #34 on: August 02, 2018, 01:18:09 pm »

At least we know he is a photographer. I'd bet the results he'd get from using those pawn shop cameras would put most supercomputer camera wielding contributors here to shame.

So you equate being a photographer by the gear they use. Interesting.

I guess then "real drivers" were back in the 60's and today's drivers with their computerized vehicles are just wannabes. And I guess those scientists that run simulations on computers when they are designing rockets are not "real scientists" since the "real scientists" used slide rulers to do their computations.

I always get a kick out of the cave dwellers when they emerge into today's world.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2018, 01:21:09 pm »

Vision and ability + Simple box = Images to relish.

Peter

Why does the box have to be simple in order to get images to relish. I constantly see amazing images captured with today's cameras that could just not be possible with those simple boxes. But the opposite is not true...today's cameras could create all those images from yesteryear.
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2018, 01:37:29 pm »

So you equate being a photographer by the gear they use. Interesting.

I guess then "real drivers" were back in the 60's and today's drivers with their computerized vehicles are just wannabes. And I guess those scientists that run simulations on computers when they are designing rockets are not "real scientists" since the "real scientists" used slide rulers to do their computations.

I always get a kick out of the cave dwellers when they emerge into today's world.

Not at all, I was suggesting Rob is a far better photographer than most here regardless of the camera he chooses to use. At least we know he is a photographer.

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #37 on: August 02, 2018, 01:42:49 pm »

Not at all, I was suggesting Rob is a far better photographer than most here regardless of the camera he chooses to use. At least we know he is a photographer.

But that's not what we are talking about. Do you feel technology has made people worse photographers?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #38 on: August 02, 2018, 01:46:55 pm »

Not at all, I was suggesting Rob is a far better photographer than most here regardless of the camera he chooses to use. At least we know he is a photographer.

+1

Now, there is no doubt that technology opens up possibilities, be it DR, AF, eye AF,... but there is a threshold somewhere that may be defined in terms of who decides some important aspect of a photograph: the photographer or the camera.

We probably all agree that a camera mounted on a motorized tripod with an AI based algo deciding instead of the photographer the composition and timing of exposure isn’t photography anymore?

Cheers,
Bernard

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2451
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: What COULD a camera be in 2018?
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2018, 02:10:59 pm »

But that's not what we are talking about. Do you feel technology has made people worse photographers?

Not at all, if a photographer needs the tech then more power to their elbow. Not everyone does and describing those photographers who don't as cave dwellers is just insulting.

Peculiar as it may seem I tend to make judgements on image makers based on their images. If they can walk the walk I'll then listen with interest when they talk the talk.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up